Return-Path: 
 <users-return-22767-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 97699 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2010 16:53:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2010 16:53:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 47672 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2010 16:53:00 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 47651 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2010 16:53:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@activemq.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.activemq.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 47643 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2010 16:53:00 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:53:00 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:52:55 +0000
Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156])
	by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <lists@nabble.com>)
	id 1NogC2-0000Vv-CC
	for users@activemq.apache.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:52:34 -0800
Message-ID: <27824076.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:52:34 -0800 (PST)
From: cmoulliard <cmoulliard@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Protocol to be used in a broker topolgy (same JVM)
In-Reply-To: <7b3355cb1003080836r679b8326q61f4315b0816a534@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Nabble-From: cmoulliard@gmail.com
References: <27818595.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <7b3355cb1003080836r679b8326q61f4315b0816a534@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org


You are right. My question concerns an hypothetical network of broker and i=
t
makes no sense to use it in such.

Charles


bsnyder wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:55 AM, cmoulliard <cmoulliard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I presume that when we create a network of 2 brokers running in the same
>> jvm, it makes more sense to use the vm:// as the protocol to interconnec=
t
>> the master broker with the slave ?
>>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<networkConnectors>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<networkConnector uri=3D"static=
://(vm://localhost:61617)"/>
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0</networkConnectors>
>>
>> So, we can boost performance for transferring messages from one broker t=
o
>> another and reduce cpu/memory consumption ?
>=20
> Yes, use of the VM transport will certainly eliminate the use of the
> TCP stack, but I question the value of a broker network that exists in
> a single JVM.
>=20
> Bruce
> --=20
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=3D6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>=20
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>=20
>=20


-----
Charles Moulliard
SOA Architect

My Blog :  http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/ http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/ =
=20
--=20
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Protocol-to-be-used-in-=
a-broker-topolgy-%28same-JVM%29-tp27818595p27824076.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.